Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley leaves the Assembly floor to attend a GOP caucus meeting where he resigned as Assembly GOP Leader on Aug. 24, 2017, in Sacramento. Mayes is leaving his post in September after weeks of pressure from his party over his support for major climate change legislation.(Photo11: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

State Assemblymember Chad Mayes is suing California over a ballot measure that could help Republican lawmakers influence how the state spends its climate change funds, claiming that misleading language written by the state's Democratic attorney general will confuse voters so they oppose the measure in June.

Proposition 70 stems from a hard-fought deal between Mayes and Gov. Jerry Brown last year. In exchange for Mayes delivering Republican votes to extend California's cap-and-trade program, which puts a price on planet-warming emissions, Brown and Sacramento Democrats agreed to a statewide vote that could change how funds generated by the program are spent. If Prop 70 passes, the Legislature will be required to approve some of that spending in a two-thirds vote, rather than the majority vote that's needed now.

Now, Mayes says the deal that cost him his leadership post is being undermined by the California's attorney general, Xavier Becerra.

In a lawsuit filed in state court in Sacramento this week, Mayes accused Becerra of describing Proposition 70 in a way that will mislead people into voting against it. The voter information guide written by the attorney general gives the following title for Prop 70: "Limits Legislature's authority to use cap-and-trade revenue to reduce pollution."

That's false, Mayes says in his lawsuit: The ballot measure would do nothing to limit the Legislature's authority, and money generated by the climate program would still be spent on projects that reduce pollution. All Prop 70 would do is change the voting threshold on some of those spending decisions from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority.

"The title drafted by the Attorney general falsely and misleadingly implies the Legislature is somehow 'limited' from using those funds to pay for programs to reduce pollution or greenhouse gas emissions," the lawsuit states.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.(Photo11: AP PHOTO)

Mayes sued California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who is responsible for preparing and distributing the voter information guide in advance of the June election. The lawsuit also concerns Becerra, since his office actually writes the ballot measures.

Mayes has asked the court to substitute Becerra's description with new language his office has written, which he says more accurately describes Prop 70. Padilla is supposed to submit the finalized voter information guide to be printed on March 12.

The attorney general's office didn't immediately response to a request for comment. Spokespeople for Padilla and Mayes declined to comment.

The cap-and-trade program championed by Gov. Brown requires oil refiners, power plants and other climate polluters to pay a fee for the planet-warming carbon they emit. State officials set an overall cap on the amount of carbon that polluters are allowed to emit in a given year. They enforce the cap by issuing a limited number of "allowances" each year, then requiring companies to have enough allowances to cover their pollution. Companies can buy extra allowances from the government or from other polluters.

The goal is to make cutting emissions as inexpensive as possible. Companies that can slash their climate pollution cheaply are able to sell allowances to emitters for whom cutting back would be prohibitively expensive. On the flip side, polluters who can't afford to cut emissions can instead buy allowances. The overall emissions cap — and thus the number of allowances in the marketplace — drops every year, slowly reducing pollution.

The program generates revenue, which is required by state law to be spent on projects that lead to additional cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. So far, Democrats have set aside the biggest chunk of that money — roughly $1 billion — for Brown's high-speed rail project, the bullet train that could one day connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. Republicans have criticized the allocation of cap-and-trade funds for the bullet train, which they see as an expensive boondoggle that isn't worth its $64-billion price tag.

In this Friday Sept. 22, 2006, file photo, an oil refinery is seen at sunset in Rodeo, California.(Photo11: Rich Pedroncelli, AP)

Enter Proposition 70, negotiated by Mayes in exchange for delivering seven Republican votes in the Assembly to extend cap and trade from 2020 to 2030. If the ballot measure is approved by voters in June, money generated by cap and trade starting in 2024 would need to be allocated by two-thirds votes of both houses of the Legislature, rather than majority votes. That could give Republicans a chance to block high-speed rail, if the project hasn't advanced past the point where it can be blocked by then. More broadly, Prop 70 could serve as a check on how Democratic lawmakers spend the climate funds.

"California has said, 'We are going to engage in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.' That's settled here," Mayes told The Desert Sun last year, explaining why he hoped to work with Democrats on cap and trade, even as the Republican Party nationwide has fought efforts to deal with climate change. "This is about policy. It's about focusing on what the current policy is in California, and how to make the policy better."

While Mayes has framed Proposition 70 as a significant concession, some conservative activists disagree. Even if the ballot measure passes, all money generated by cap-and-trade auctions from now until 2024 can still be spent by majority vote of the Legislature. And after a one-time, two-thirds vote on how to spend the funds that start accumulating in 2024, lawmakers would go back to allocating cap-and-trade funds by majority rule.

Even the one-time vote might not do much for Republicans. Democrats won two-thirds supermajorities in both houses in 2016, and they may still have those margins in 2024.

Joseph Turner — a conservative activist who helped lead the backlash against Mayes over his cap-and-trade deal, and who at one point threatened to protest the Yucca Valley church where Mayes' father preaches — ridiculed Prop 70 in a blog post this week. Turner wrote that the ballot measure "was touted as some grand achievement that was going to kill high speed rail and place some checks on those crazy Democrats. Activists like myself saw through the smokescreen and eviscerated this talking point."

"There isn’t even a guarantee that Republicans will even have one third of the seats in either chamber come 2024," Turner wrote. "Is it possible that Mayes, in his haste to be the Republican standing up at the podium with Governor Moonbeam got burned and sold a bill of goods by the Democrats?"

In addition to putting Proposition 70 on the ballot as part of the climate deal, Mayes got Democratic lawmakers to eliminate a fire-prevention fee paid by rural property owners.

Sammy Roth writes about energy and the environment for The Desert Sun. He can be reached at sammy.roth@desertsun.com, (760) 778-4622 and @Sammy_Roth.